(first posted 10/11/2011) Lee Iaccoca was obviously ahead of his time. He understood and embraced the concept of recycling well before any of us ever dreamed about hauling out our tin cans every week to be re-made into…more tin cans . Never really liking McNamara’s boxy 1960 Falcon, Iaccoca soon recycled it into the smash success 1965 Mustang. When it became obvious that the ever-bigger Falcon had made no lasting impact on the madly successful Volkswagen, Lee went back to the same well, as he would so many time in the future. Throw a stylish fastback bell-bottom suit on the boxy old Falcon, cynically call it Maverick, and advertise it as The Simple Machine. And then have it premiere on the exact same date the Mustang did, five years earlier. How hard can it be, to stop that pesky Beetle in its tracks, once and for all?

Well, we all know now that the Maverick didn’t make the slightest impact whatsoever on the VW, whose sales increased handily in 1969 and 1970. But that’s because Lee utterly failed to understand what was really driving the import market. Which was also changing faster than Lee’s ability to conjure up new ammunition against it. But who cared, in 1970? The Maverick was a smash hit, selling no less than 579k units in its extra-long first model year. That’s not much less than the Mustang’s miraculous 681 k units for 1965. April 17 really was a magic date for Lido.

Of course, sales came crashing back to reality in 1971, when the Maverick passed the import-fighting baton to the even smaller Pinto. But that’s another story (CC here). Ford’s one-two cow-punch, which so evoked the myth of the Mustang, certainly was colorful but hardly the knock-out expected of them. One could say that the imports were watching the show from the sidelines, rather than actually being in the ring.

Ford must have assumed that import buyers were masochists, who bought the Vokswagen because of its notoriously cozy rear seat. Why else would they have thought that crippling the original Falcon’s quite good space utilization by turning the rear seat into a torture chamber, thanks to a reduced wheelbase and that low, sloping roof, was a better idea?

Come to think of it, the Maverick was really a prophetic vehicle, decades ahead of its time. Its swooping curves, sloping rear, tiny rear window, and semi-gun-slit side windows presaged the whole trend that is being recycled again. Maybe these two Fiestas aren’t the best example, but you get my drift.

Let’s just say that the Maverick’s space utilization was atrocious. Road and Track did an analysis of the Maverick, comparing its interior space in relation to its exterior volume and also its “road area”, and then comparing those same stats with the Beetle and the Datsun 510. The Maverick lost both, hands down. Needless to say, the Datsun 510 won; the space utilization comparison, that is. Never mind driving dynamics.

One has to remember that back then, a decade still meant something in car time, unlike today. While the Datsun 510 offered a lusty OHC engine, a sweet-shifting stick, and independent suspension all-around, the Maverick was a time capsule back to 1960: a dull 170 cubic inch standard six strangled by smog controls, and a balky column shifter for the standard three speed manual. Steering was deadly slow, and handling was slowly dead. Or in R&T’s words: “sluggish, with great gobs of understeer, and slow, not-so-light steering that doesn’t return well.” Take your pick.

Admittedly, with the optional 200 CID six, straight line performance was decent, if not exciting. That would have to wait a year, until the 210 (gross) hp 302 (5 liter) V8 arrived as an option. You might think that that would somehow be associated with the Grabber, which was the “sporty” Maverick, and had power-suggesting bulges and fake scoops in its hood. Not so; the Grabber was strictly an appearance package, and for all I know, there’s very likely a little six under this ones protrusions (actually, the five-bolt lugs give this away as a genuine V8).

How come Niedermeyer’s so down on the poor little Simple Machine? I was a car jockey in 1970-1971 at a Ford dealership (story here), and let’s just say that Mavericks and ’71 Galaxie/LTDs were on the bottom of my driving pecking order; even below pickups. Well, how much stock can you put in the impressions of a crazed seventeen year-old?

But all that changed when the first V8 showed up one day; with its skinny little non-Grabbing tires, it became the doughnut vehicle of choice. Not for getting them; for making them. The light Maverick, a healthy 302, and those little tires; it was literally made for the job (this one is actually a Comet; close enough). Ironically, a little old lady ended up buying it, despite its worn rear tires.

In a move that would foreshadow Iaccoca’s wheel-base lengthened K-cars, the Maverick was treated to an elongated, four-door version; the Not-Quite-So-Simple Machine. Riding on the same wheelbase length as the original Falcon went quite a ways in restoring its rear passenger space, along with a proper roof-line. But that was just the start of the Maverick’s transformation.

The Simple Car theme was too spartan to have any legs for American car buyers, and The Great Brougham Epoch was now well underway, so the Maverick got its own dose of Dearborn luxury. Volkswagen? Toyota? What’s that?

Anyway, Maverick sales were just so-so, once the initial mania subsided, and buyers were off chasing the next exciting and great automotive fad. Like Ford’s own Granada, which was based on the Maverick’s fine underpinnings. Hey; we believe in recycling, for as long as possible. Or until our buyers won’t buy it anymore. At least the Granada had a rear window one could see out of.

The whole premise of of the original 1970 Maverick, priced at $1995 and painted in Anti-Establishment Mint, was a very fleeting proposition, just like those crazy first-year sales numbers. Goodbye fashionable New Paint.

The Maverick evolved from the cool mini-skirt wearing secretary’s little coupe to Grandma’s dowdy and dull four-door faster than you could say Toyota. Or Honda.

Maybe one of the reasons I never cottoned much to the Maverick was because it reminded me too much of the ill-fated Henry J. Same basic fastback shape, wide-set eyes, bulging hood, and stupid grin. And although the Maverick was vastly more successful from a sales point, with over two million sold, ultimately it too failed in its mission to make a lasting impact on the small-car market. Recycling metal is one thing; recycling old ideas is another.

180 Comments

Is it clear now why I wasn’t a Ford fan back then? I’m still not much of one. My best memory of the Maverick when it came out was the advertisment when it was noted that even a woman(!) could replace a front fender, as it only was held on by, how many? – 8 bolts?

Other than that, the package shelf instead of a glove box and the tiny windows on the coupes, even if the rear windows popped open rather than roll down. Cheap, cheap, cheap! Make mine a Nova, please!

@Zackman: back in the day when I was driving these things, they were cheap, cheap, cheap! They were cheap to buy, but not so cheap to fix (constantly).

You’re right, the Ford 250 six was awful. The Mopar, AMC and Chevy sixes were much better motors in IMO. After having owned one of these, I would rate the Dart/Duster and Nova (& clones) tied for first, the Hornet and then the Maverick.

I hated Fords, even when my parents bought a 5-year-old 6/automatic ’68 Mustang convertible (which I drove a lot for one summer – story on another CC thread), I’d actually wished they’d have come home with the other car on the lot that sparked their interest – a ’66 Chevelle wagon with a 283/stick.

Problem was, after 1970 GM squandered so much equity on travesties like Vega, Chevette, X & J cars and the first generation of FWD A-bodies, which compared to the Gen-I Taurus seemed like the difference between a VW and a Mercedes.

It’s like Roger Smith drove to Dearborn and told Henry II, “Chevrolet is tired of being number one, you can have it for awhile”.

I once did a series of radio remote broadcasts for a local Avis place that was selling off a pile of GM vehicles in about the 30,000-mile range. To a car…EVERY FWD A-body drove like the front wheels were about to fall off, the steering racks were that loose. I’d driven a couple other A’s over the years and the steering racks were the same. In contrast, no Taurus I ever drove felt anything less than tight and solid.

I haven’t driven any of the newest vehicles to wear the Bowtie but people I speak with who do are happy as can be with their purchase. It seems to me like the rest of GM engineering and quality control is finally catching up with the outstanding Gen-III and Gen-IV engines.

I have been straddled with the presence of a 70 Maverick in my stable since the age of 16. (27 years now, give or take)
I will be the first to admit that the engineering and over-all build quality left lots to be desired .
But ya know what? I still have that Maverick, and I’m proud to say it does run, passes inspection, and does not hesitate to get me where I need to be and then home to boot .
Please understand that $1,995 bought a person a brand new car, (Even in 1970 dollars that was a steal) If one really wanted for the Maverick’s cheapness to not show so much, pony up a few more bucks and get another Ford model .
I stated that mine has been with me for a very long time. I must also say that I have invested both time and money to make my Maverick what I want it to be . (Lret’s not forget that many a Ford product used that chassis design, like Mustang, and I have used that fact to my advantage whenever and wherever possible)
The reality is also this, that car has been steadfast realiable to me . (Yes I stay on top of maintenance and repairs) I have never had to call a tow truck to rescue me .
It is also fair to say that I am a mechanic by trade that specializes in Ford, (SUPRISE !!!) so my Mav has several advantages that most other Mavs never had . (A loving/ knowledgeable owner)
In all, I’d have to say I’ve gotten my mileage out of my first car, (over 500k)
and in spite of the fact I had a car that no teenager wanted in the early 90’s, it is now a trusted member of my family. If I had to do it all over??? HECK YEAH !!!! It’s been a fun ride and an invaluable teacher to me.

Think Ford Granada with a Lincoln grille and emblem and you have Versailles. True the 4 wheel disc was standard on Versailles, but it was still an option on Granada and Monarch. (Let’s not forget the spiffy hydroboost power brakes with Bendix non-integral power steering.)

In 1970, I had test driven a 1968 Saab 96 V4 and wanted it more than I had ever wanted anything. My father convinced me to test drive a Maveric with the small six and a three on the tree. To me it was horrible beyond words. In the meantime somebody else bought the Saab.

In 1982 I had a ’74 Comet with the 250. It had “good pickup” because it wouldn’t shift out of 1st gear. What did I know? I was 17 and had my first car and I thought it was fast which it sure felt like it was.

It was a terrible car but what got me was the horrendous fuel economy. 10-11 mpg HIGHWAY!

A squeaky, moaning, groaning, gas guzzling mess. That said, I always thought the lines on the coupes cool; the four doors not so much.

I ditched it for a Chrysler Cordoba. My Comet must’ve been really, really bad because I thought the Cordoba was a good car!

While these cars certainly had all the shortcomings you describe they were not really all that terrible. My father in law had one which was given to my sister in law. It was a very basic 6 cyl, 3 speed stick, no air, no power anything. While it was clunky to drive it ran and ran and ran and ran. I though it might last forever. No real problems ever developed. My sister in law just got tired of it and sold it to a friend of mine. Friend drove it several more years. I can’t be sure but I’ll bet the car lasted over 200,000 miles.

I concur. Paul hates Fords of that era with a passion – for reasons that don’t have a whole lot to do with the cars. I nurse an abiding hatred of GM products for similar reasons.

And I’m sympathetic towards those Fords, because they’re connected with good memories and experiences. I’ve written of my Pintos; as it happened, my old man dumped his Wagoneer for a Maverick 4-door. It was a bland car; by objective standards not a road car…but compared to my mother’s Torino, a nimble, tiny little thing. And the 250 six delivered fifteen whole miles a gallon! Contrast that with the EIGHT my mother got with her 351 Cleveland V8…

They were not outstanding cars. They weren’t driver’s cars. What they were, were utilitarian appliances…the Pintos and Mavericks and even the larger Ford offerings. They always started; and they kept running long past the time when body-rot made them literally unsafe to drive.

While I’ve always had a soft spot for Mavericks, it isn’t just Paul–period reviewers weren’t keen on it either. I recall articles from Road & Track, Consumer Reports, and others citing the same weaknesses: sloppy handling; steering that was either manual and ultra-slow, or powered, sticky, and over-light; anemic acceleration; woeful space efficiency, and so on. I remember one noting that over bumps, the poorly-sprung front bench seat tended to “bottom out” before the suspension did!

An especially revealing review was the one by Car Life, who spent all of a few hundred bucks (1969 dollars) on a new steering assembly, sway bars, shocks, and some top-end bits for the 200-cid Six. The result: 0-60 dropped from 13.0 to 8.3 seconds, and the car handled rings around the stocker. Goes to show what Ford could have done with a bit more ambition.

That said, a stock “Grabber” coupe with the 302 V8 is still on my wish list of real-world classics to own. There was something about the Maverick’s compact Coke-bottle lines that I find quite captivating.

Interestingly I am just looking at the May 1970 issue of Car Life. The road test comparator indicates that a 1970 Mustang Grabber equipped with a 200 cid six three speed auto and 2.83:1 rear end was capable of the following performance : quartermile 19.4 top speed 99mph fuel economy 19-21 mpg. For comparison the vaunted Boss 302 with a 3.91:1 rear and 4 speed returned a quartermile of 14.85 with a top speed of 118 mph and fuel economy of 11-13 mpg. The Boss 429 Mustang with the same rear end and tranny lowered the quarter mile et. to 14.09 with the same 118 mph top end. Fuel economy dropped to 9-12 mph. The results are consistant with other cotemporary magazine test results. This is why I am not so enamoured with classic musclecars. My 92 300zx would only be trailing a couple of car lengths behind the Boss 429 at the end of the quarter mile then would leave it behind as it wound up to its 140+mph. top end. Plus my Z could corner and stop too.

Back to the sixes. I have several very informative six cylinder hop up stories including the famous 1970 Hot Rod magazine A K Miller three carb manifold adaptation article. 1970 was the last year of the 9.1 compression Ford six. This was before Detroit started the anti smog detuning that resulted in the 1971 Mustang with the base 302 topping out at 86 mph.
(cited from the Consumer Guide Mustang the car that started the Ponycar stampede). My plan for my 70 Mustang coupe with the 250 I6 is to try to acheive 30 mpg. at 60 mph.

Really late to the party, I know, but my (original-owner) ’72 2-door Maverick w. 4 options (302; 3-on-the-floor; 14″ wheels; bucket seats) regularly got 20+ mpg in mixed driving. Best-ever was 32+ crossing NV; it was so good I stopped for fuel in Lovelock after topping up in Wendover thinking maybe the gas gauge had failed! It got 25+ towing a 2,000 lb trailer on the way back.

Bought it for ~$1/lb ($2600) and sold it 37 years later for $500; the buyer wanted its (3rd) engine. Was my daily driver until 1990, after which it became my trailer-towing pickup. I’d still have it if Mr. Rust hadn’t won (sigh)…

Visibility like a tank. Plowed like a tractor. Reliability – ignoring routine(ly-supplied) maintenance needs – of a picnic table. Stranded me only once when the original (nylon-coated) timing gears stripped. Dirt simple and pretty much bulletproof….well other than that “plastic gear silliness” I mean.

Just learned that several family members had the car at various times. It was known as “Wondercar” because it was indestructible even with minimal/nonexistent maintenance. Even in Texas with no road salt the floor pans still rusted out!

As a member of the “not born before 1990” club, I feel it pertinent to inform the uninformed (and incurious) that I do drive one of these simple machines. It’s a baby blue (not factory) 4-speed (not factory) car built in early 1970 (factory) with a 200 floating around in the void between the passenger compartment and the headlights. It really does do quite well considering my previous two cars, and I believe this engine will last many-a-year under my gradually lightening cement foot. I actually acquired it from a gentleman who had to be in his seventies that had owned it since the Seventies (’73, to be exact) after having bought it from the dealership. Its original owner was a woman (I believe it was implied that she was single but very well off, as she was designated as a ‘Ms.’ instead of ‘Mrs.’) who returned it to the Ford dealership for no discernible reason, other than the fact that it was a Maverick. Anyway, I bought it from the gentleman for $750 (this year!) only needing a water pump and tires, though we easily drove it the 30-odd miles from Newnan to Atlanta, Georgia. After replacing the pump and taking her in for new tires (wish I’d thought to get wider-tracked tires rather than continue the skinny little feet it had before), all I needed to do… was to learn to drive stick. That was a hoot. In any case, she’s alive and kicking. I just gotta fix that damn window that keeps falling off the track…

What a great find! Back in the day when there were lots of these around, I was a Valiant/Dart/Duster kind of guy, but these were good servicable cars if you did not live in salt country. You should congratulate yourself because you now own a 65 Mustang for really cheap. If you ever do get an old Mustang, you will know all about them by virtue of owning this car. It is great for another generation to get firsthand experience with some of the old stuff, that was SO easy to work on. I hope that you enjoy your car for a long time.

Thanks! Yes, this car is super, super easy to work on, which was part of the selling point. For a poor college student such as I with an interest in tinkering, that’s all I ask for. Well, mostly all I ask for. Ha.
Side note/observation: was/is the Maverick really all that cozy? It seems to me that it has a fair amount of shoulder and head room. In the front anyway. Then again, I always confuse spaciousness with barren landscape, so…

I always thought the Maverick coupe was attractive. But then I rode in one, and when I realized that calling its handling “sloppy” would be an understatement, I lost any love I had for The Simple Machine.

For everyone who says they loved the original Mustang for the way it drove (and not for its looks or personality) you could have one well into the 70s – it was called the Maverick. This car was a 65 Mustang without the bucket seats or floor shift.

It suffered all of the Ford small car problems of the era. It was a bad ruster, the weak door hinges, the plastic grommets around the door locks that would crack and fall out leading to incessant rattling, the freezing door locks, and the giggling suspension bushings. But still, the mechanical underpinnings were pretty durable and these would run for a long time.

I drove one of these occasionally back in the 70s, and it drove to me like every Falcon or early Mustang I had ever driven. It just lacked stuff that I was used to by then (like a glovebox). And what a turnaround. From the 1970 Simple Machine (available in AntiEstablish Mint) to the 1973 Luxury Decor Option. Talk about mission creep.

Yup. So similar it was, it even used the same cowl layout under the hood…the same oddball wiper linkage, that had the right wiper three degrees behind the left one. Seeing those wipers (on Falcons, Mustangs, and Mavericks) hit their stops at different times, was always disconcerting…it looked like the linkage was loose, but it wasn’t. They just had the linkage rods, right and left, separate, with the wiper motor in a vee off-center of either.

My Dad owned a couple of 65 F100 pickups over the years and the wipers had the irritating trait of slapping the weatherstripping and cowl at the bottom of the windshield….My Dad finally adjusted the travel on them so they would bottom out before the bottom of the windshield.

The family had a ’66 Comet (Fairlane) with those damn suspension bushings, squeaking all the way. At the age of 12, they made me slink down the back seat as the car conspicuously made its presence known. Don’t forget the undersized leaf springs on the back that caused nearly all cheap Fords, including Mustangs, to keep their nose in the air.

Squeaky front end bushings… I remember those! My brother’s ’67 Cougar had the same noise. I could always hear the “squeak” before I heard the car pulling into the driveway. Good times & memories!
Undersized leaf springs? Maybe that’s why a rear upper shock mount let got on my ’72 Maverick?. I remember wanting to weld it, however was too lazy to remove the fuel tank to do it=BOOM! I think I ended up thru-bolting the broken sheet metal surrounding the shock mount?

What are you doing, going through the list of cars I’ve owned somehow? I also owned a Maverick!

That wasn’t so unusual. I knew tons of guys that owned them. Several of them owned more than one. One of my high school girlfriends owned one. In fact, remembering her car was the reason why I did my engine swap. Hers was a V8, mine was a 6.

I had a 1974 coupe, it came with the 250 boat anchor six and an autobox. I was loading trucks at the time, so I had a few dollars in my pocket. The car was originally meant to be a work beater. But, after a night of bench racing, me and a buddy of mine thought it would be a capital idea to put a V8 in my winter beater Maverick. It’s amazing the ideas you can come up with after ingesting large quantities of alcohol…

I managed to find a (NOS replacement engine) 289 4 bbl V8. I bought a pair of headers that were supposed to fit in my car, installed them on the engine and then proceeded to do the swap. Unfortunately, I had failed to take into account a whole laundry list of small but important items that makes a swap work easily. My favorite part was, though, the @#$@#!!! headers didn’t fit the body of the car! I had to pound them into submission.

You’re right in your assessment of the car, though. It was stylistic crap. The interior was cramped, the seats sucked and the 1974 versions no longer had the nice shelf underneath the dash, you were stuck with a glovebox. I’d liked that shelf on the older versions. The steering and the brakes sucked. They really sucked when you added lots of horsepower to a car that really isn’t meant for it…

I kept the car another year or so, but by then rust was taking it’s toll on the front upper shock mounts, which is what took a many of these cars off the road. Besides, by then, I had divested myself of my antifreeze puking Mercury Capri Turbo, too and was ready to p*ss away, I mean, spend my money on my next car.

I can’t think of a car whose character depended more upon option and body style choice than these. The base models were quite dreadful. My parents owned a 1972 4dr Comet with the LDO option (of of the earliest ones) with the 302 and AC. The LDO option included a raft of improvements such as extra sound deadening, different spring rates and bushings, and on this one, even 70 series B.F. Goodrich Radials. The brochure indicated they were supposed to be DR78X14, but these were ER70x14.
. It was a pleasant enough car to ride in, and had decent handling within strict limits (I think the tires played a big part here). The LDO seats came out of the European Consul-Granadas of the day and were actually quite nice. The brakes were a weak point, being all-drum, without the option of neither disc nor power assist. (This was addressed in 1974). It wasn’t all that reliable, needing a new master cylinder along with a brake reline at about 1.5 years old. Also had issues with the cooling system, such as a stuck thermostat, and a sticking water valve on the HVAC system which left us without heat on a cold Saskatchewan weekend.
The powertrain was bulletproof. It was the car in which I taught myself to drive and also in which I achieved the milestone of my first 100 mph ride, which just happened to be the indicated top speed of it.

The Maverick coupe was essentially a decontented 1969 Mustang. They shortened the hood, stripped out everything they could and gave the car a GM-like fastback. The four door was apparently an add on; at least initially Ford thought the compact sedan market was dead (which is why they killed the 1969 Falcon).

Compare the Maverick to the AMC Hornet, which was the only truly new compact design in the early 1970s. The Hornet had the then-popular “fuselage” styling, which gave the interior a claustrophobic feel compared to the Ramblers of yore, but it at least had a recent-sized back seat and . . . a glove box! The hatchback even looked pretty good. Odd how the Maverick sold pretty well whereas the Hornet was never as successful as its predecessor Ramblers.

The Falcon moved to a shortened Fairlane body in 1966. In contrast, the 1967 Mustang was given a relatively mild reskinning of the 1965-66 body, e.g., it used the same windshield and door frames (replete with vent wings). The 1969 was less visibly similar to its predecessor but did not receive a wholly new body like the bloated 1971.

I actually like these cars for what they are; a better Mustang that the larded up early 1970s Mustangs actually were. I would see a car like the Maveric as a starting point, buy basic car and turn it into what you want it to be. Gime a 351W – V8, C6 auto, locking diff, fat Firestone 500 tires, and then we’d have something.

Although maybe my facination has something to do with previously working at a middle school that was the “Chief Manuelito Mavericks.” If I owned a Maverick I could drive my Maverick to the “Home of the Mavericks.” Besides who could forget that badge?

When Hyundai came out with the SantaFe Car and Driver said; “In the midst of a CUV/SUV craze we can’t believe no one thought to use this name before.” Then again Hyundai does love the Southwest apparently – Santa Fe, Tuscon, and (Kia) Sedona.

I do like the old column shifts as well. My 1961 Chevy – see the next article – had the three speed. I obtained a cheap Foxcraft flor shifter and mounted the linkage accordingly. Having a floor shift was novel at the time, but the doggone bolt that held the stick in place would routinely break loose on a speed shift from 1st to 2nd, rotate and smah my knuckles against the dash! Occasionally, the linkage would lock up and I would have to limp in 2nd gear until I could crawl under the car and un-jam it! Fun times being a kid.

I should have welded up the hole and re-mounted the column shift and forgot the whole thing! I never made that mistake again!

I worked for a small-town DPW…they were careful with money; so they tended to keep their trucks a lot longer than was customary. When I was there, late 1970s, they had a fleet of mid-60s Chevrolet pickups…the column shift was a weak point. At one point the mechanic decided that the best thing to do was put floor-shifts in.

No problem…except when set up, the shift patter was exactly opposite what one would expect. Reverse was to the right and down; first was to the right and up. Second, to the left and down, and high to the left and up.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave / when bolts we butcher, to be cheap…

jpcavanaugh

Posted October 12, 2011 at 6:00 AM

When I was in high school, a friend’s dad had this done to his early 70 Falcon. The column shift had always been balky and messed up, so he had a floor shifter installed. He got the same pattern you drove. Really wierd to drive.

I bought my 1st new car, 1973 Maverick Grabber, 3spd, 302 and AM radio, nothing follows. 2,995 is what I paid. White with an orange interior and stripes. In some ways it was a dog but most of the time I was styling I kept it up and waxed, took it the drag strip right out of the box, ran a 15.8 then I guess the jerking on the gear changing caused the exhaust to fall off at the Y, hey I still ran a 15.8 but it was a lower 15.8. I owned it for 3 yrs, I would work all week then race, repair the car every week. Now that I am 61 I decided against my best judgement to get another, A 73 Grabber white with green but it had the dog 250, so I am in the process of the 302 change got it started today, I never thought about this car being small back in the day? But it is tiny, It is a shame I didn’t have the money to treat the old one like this one, but I recond I will have to run it once or twice just to get the 17 year old blood gushing again. Oh by the way my car note was $93.07 a mo for 36 months, that wont cover the cable bill now!!!

Guy ulrich

Posted January 12, 2017 at 8:38 PM

Mine isn’t a Grabber, but I own a medium bright yellow 73 2dr Maverick myself. I’ve owned it since Sept. of 90. I paid $1100 for it. This is it.

Believe it or not, my Carson biography was more beign to ol’ Kit. While a new book it read more like something written in the 50s off the Daniel Boone craze.
All the border atrocity stuff was blamed on Carleton and the ilk.
.
Author: Dave Remley, U of Okla. Press. :

educatordan

Posted October 11, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Carleton was the crazy one who thought God was telling him to do what he was doing to the Navajo, Carson merely followed orders… but then so did many National Socialists in Germany. General Carleton is one of many reasons I never trust anyone who claims that he’s doing something in the name of God, whatever name that person knows him by.

1. Not all 5 lugs are V8s, the 250-6 (available from day one) also had them.
2. The Grabber WAS NOT just an appearance package, it had larger front sway bar, and higher rate springs, and shocks to match. And they were all V8s, which is why the Grabber package debuted in ’72, along with the 302.
3. Also, this car was started before the 68 safety and emissions act was enacted, and was actually going to be paired with the brilliant 351 Cleveland as a NHRA legal Showroom Stock racer. Hence the reason for the fastback styling, 2 door only body, and total lack of creature comforts. Also explains why there was both the Maverick AND Falcon in the showroom in ’70. Sadly, passing of the Clean Air Act changed everything.

You may well be right about the 5 lug wheels for the 250 six, but you’re not quite right about the Grabber. I wrote that from memory, but just checked it out. This from Hemmings Buyer’s Guide:

“The introductory 1970 Maverick models lasted 18 months, and those early Grabbers were merely a trim level, offering stripes, a blackout grille and precious little else. For 1971, though, the Grabber became its own model within the Maverick family. The package included simulated hood scoops (which, simulated or not, looked darned good) with blackout paint, Grabber stripes on the sides, fender decals, blackout tail panel, grille-mounted road lamps and Maverick nameplate, blackened grille, hubcaps with trim rings on 14-inch wheels and D70-14 tires, twin body-color sport mirrors, a decklid spoiler offering a little more of a duck-tail effect, bright window frames and drip moldings and the DeLuxe steering wheel. Most importantly, V-8 power became available, as it did throughout the Maverick line, in the form of Ford’s reliable 302.”

The V8 was always optional, and I saw plenty of six cylinder Grabbers, even after 1971. Here’s more from Hemmings:

“Wondering whether a particular Maverick is a real V-8-powered Grabber or not? The easiest way to tell without insulting the owner is by checking out the VIN: The third and fourth digits should be a 93, which indicate Maverick Grabber. (A standard Maverick coupe has a 91 code.) The engine code, in this case F for the 302-cu.in.V-8, is the fifth digit in the VIN. Anything else was born with a straight-six.”

I can attest that the Grabber did not come with the V8 as part of the package. My brother bought a new ’73 Grabber that he owned for eight years; it had the 250-I6.

My parents also owned a ’74 (two-door, non-Grabber) on which I learned to drive. Despite the design flaws mentioned by many, nearly all of the Mavericks I encountered were undeniably durable…but then again, I’m a Southerner, so the tinworm didn’t claim them…

You got me Paul. A few hours after I posted this, I remembered I worked with a guy around ’85ish that had a Grabber with a 250 and a 3 speed…sheesh…my bad…but the V8 was not available until late ’71…as a ’72 I have owners manuals for both ’70 and ’71…no mention of the 302

The V8 was phased in without any fanfare. I was very up on all the news at the time, and worked at a Ford dealer. Never heard anything about a V8 Maverick. Then suddenly, one shows up on the delivery truck. Wow! Did they make a mistake on the line? I couldn’t believe it.

Since I left that job in mid-February 1971, it had to happen some time before then. It was an early mid-year MY 1971 addition, without any publicity, at least at first.

timmm55

Posted November 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM

The 302 introduction was December 1971. Hot Rod magazines were putting V8s in Mavericks since day one (and in Falcons since 60). Apparently dealers and influential magazines convinced Ford to put in a V8. Ford tried to push 250 performance kits initially. That there were V8 Novas and Darts couldn’t be ignored either. That there wasn’t a performance 4bbl version always puzzled me, but I assumed that performance image was left to the Mustang/Cougars of the day.
(btw I bought a 1971 Demon 340 in 1974)http://www.maverick.to/grabber/71Grabber.html

Here is an ad for a 71 Grabber (courtesy of maverickgrabber.com) showing that there was factory publicity. I remember reading a review of a Comet GT/302 in High School (pre-driver’s license)

My sister bought a brand new 69.5.She loved it. I don’t remember any issues with it. They are certainly rugged as hell, I see them (and Falcons, even Pintos…..can’t tell you the last time I saw a Vega!) all the time here in SoCal.

I have to ask why is someone with such an obvious and admitted anti-Ford bias writing reviews? As a writer it doesn’t aid in your perspective. Certainly not with your readership. I’ve had Mopars, a couple of Chevys, and a lot of Fords. I’d love to have my old Corvair, Demon 340, and 428CJ Cougar back!

You beat me to it Paul.
The 250 came out just after the true 1970 model year began, around November ’69, which would make it at least 8 to 9 months after the car’s April ’69 intro.. The 302 was phased in around the spring of ’71. The Grabber was offered starting in mid-1970.
The very early ones can be spotted by their lack of fake hood scoops and grill-mounted lamps. Regardless, Grabbers could be had with any engine, even the 170 six. My 8th grade teacher had a 1971 with a 250.
Also, the Grabber contained no functional upgrades-It was strictly appearance,as evidenced by this 1972 internal sales training literature.

The Maverick engine bay is too narrow to take a Cleveland,so this couldn’t
possibly have been in Ford’s plans. The Falcon was offered until December, 1969. Although titled as 1970s, they couldn’t legally be built after Jan 1-70 since that was when the steering lock ignition switch standard took effect. Falcons were never adapted to this feature. Likely just clearing out existing stock.

The company that built them, Car Craft, actually moved the shock towers outward, at great expense.

suzulight

Posted October 14, 2011 at 10:02 PM

And they would have done the same for the 351C Maverick if 1966 never happened…the year the Malaise era was actually unleashed on the unsuspecting new car buyer…enacted for the ’68 model year as the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Clean Air Act…A 1-2 punch for new car buyers….and changed automakers plans overnight. Performance packages now had to be concentrated on limited models for damage control; no longer would factorys produce RACE CARS…which left Ford with this Falcon based, 2 door fastback lightweight body…no creature comforts included…What to do? Drop the 170 six in it and blow it out as the cheapest new car for 1970…and SELL it did

My first true love, Emily, owned a Maverick… since our family owned Beemers and Jags, my initial impression was that the car was cheap, full of plastic, and insanely slow and uneconomical (I think Em got 15 mpg with the six cylinder)… plus, the puke green color was a turn-off… needless to say, Emily dumped me, and both she and the Maverick went away… in hindsight, I’m glad I didn’t marry her, or the Ford that came with her!

well, what was more intriguing was the fact that Em’s dad owned a 1959 VW Beetle, which he purchased brand-new, and kept as a daily driver… do you think here pops is still driving the Beetle? Cos I just KNOW that her Mav has gone to the car graveyard!

A friend’s mom had one of these when we were kids in the mid-80s. Back then it was still considered appropriate for a child in the back seat to stand and lean into the front to talk to the front seat passengers. When my friend did this, he would complain that the floor felt “spongy”. Nobody paid much attention until his grandfather decided to pull up the carpet and take a look. It turns out the floor pan had rotted out in the back, so the carpet was pretty much the only thing between my friend and the road.

My grandmother may have been the only repeat Maverick buyer. She bought a new ’70, said she had her heart set on one. Avocado green, 170 engine, manual steering/brakes, black interior with black/white plaid seats – at least it had an AM radio. I was with her that night about a week after she bought it when the entire ignition lock cylinder came out in her hand; all she wanted was the key! (This was a later ’70 with the key in the steering column.) She took care of it in that special way grandmas do, then gave it to my mother in 1977 after the death of our ’65 LTD (see my post in the corresponding CC for that story).

She replaced it with a dark green ’77 4-door; the damn thing looked just like an Army sedan with dog dishes, no side trim, 200 engine, and a very bright green interior. It did have power steering and brakes this time. Here’s your late 70’s build quality – it had a paint run down the inside of the front passenger door that dripped onto the kick panel, and the front brake drums (yes, drums) came pre-warped from the factory. It was the car I took my road test in a year later.

By 1978, the ’70 was beginning to fall apart. Exhaust was loud, it burned oil like crazy, ran rough (seemed like one cylinder was dead), was rusted out in spots, even the radio quit working. I actually got a ticket for excessive smoke when driving it. Some fix-it ticket – it was cheaper to pay the fine than rebuild the engine! Didn’t matter, I ended up wrecking it that summer, leaving us carless until we picked up a ’69 Chevy Kingswood wagon several weeks later.

Meanwhile, the ’77 turned out to be Grandma’s last car. She hung onto it until she died in 1993, at which time the car was clean as a whistle (still had that paint run!) and had only 48,000 miles. My brother inherited it, and drove it around as his work car for a couple of years, then it attained the status of “official family spare car.” Anyone who needed a car could use it. In 1996, that turned out to be me.

By this time, the Maverick had 90,000 miles and had suffered from my brother beating the hell out of it. Loud exhaust, pronounced lifter tick, heater core was bypassed, rear springs sagging, and plenty of rust. He had done some kind of work to the front end, and the steering wheel’s “straight” position was 1/4 turn from where it should have been. No matter, it got me around for a while until one of the rear springs broke through the trunk. It went off to the scrapyard in the fall of ’96, didn’t quite make it to 92,000 miles. That’s what happens when you let a Maverick live too long. It’s kind of a shame that I have such a low opinion of a model of car that was such a big part of my formative years (and came back to haunt me in my 30’s!), but I’ve gotta go with Paul – these cars are P’s of S.

I’m actually a Mopar guy…the coolest car ever made was the ’69-’73 “fuselage” Fury. 🙂 And back in the 70’s, there were plenty of smoking rustbucket Mustangs to go around.

I’ve driven (not owned) both of those Mavericks, a ’75 Duster, a ’70 Dart, a ’73 Nova, and owned a ’72 Gremlin. The Maverick is by far the flimsiest. Even the Gremlin felt like a tank in comparison.

I’ll buy that lack of maintenance argument for the ’77; it lasted 16 years until my brother got his hands on it. But the ’70 had already started down that road when we got it, and Grandma always took it to the dealer for service. Although my mother wasn’t exactly on top of the maintenance, the car went from halfway decent to junker in a year. I wonder how long it might have lasted if I had just waited to make that left turn…

Good memories with this cc. I bought a new (demo) Maverick in 1970 painted in the anti est.mint. If I remember correctly it had the larger 200CID six, and of course the 3 on the tree. The gear lever was balky but with a warranty trip back to the dealer it shifted much better. The power seemed OK to me, although a V8 would have been better. That series of Ford 6 cyls. , were reliable and good running little engines. I soon upgraded the tires and the handling improved considerably. Comments from road testers , like the one quoted from R & T don,t mean a lot to me. Both then and now, road testers get to drive a Ferrari or Lotus (with good rubber std.) and then test a basic, low cost car like a Maverick and complain about its “handling” and “steering”. My first car was a TR3 and I had the opportunity to drive other lbc’s including a Lotus Elan. Now the Maverick was no Lotus but the handling/steering was OK for that type of car. In other words, it wasn’t going to understeer off the road on the first fast corner.

Im pretty sure none of these were offered on our crowded little car market we got plenty of Fords from England gradually being replaced by Australian Falcons which were of course based on the American Falcon but with heavy duty suspension 4 stud wheels? nah and in 71 the front suspension was beefed up yet again to ready the late US floor pan for the Aussie styled XA released in 72 with steering lock. Those 250 engines may not put out great amounts of power but they are very hard to kill I nursed one from Cairns to Sydney stopping every 100kms to pour in 2 litres of oil and top off the water begging waste oil at garages along the way it made it and ran long enough for me to get a job and source a cheap replacement engine then put a conrod out the side other than burning oil it never gave any trouble.

Where I grew up in Kansas City, we had road salt, and I had a friend in High School who had a traffic cone orange four door Maverick. Although I was used to seeing rusty cars, never before had I seen a car as rusty as her 75K mile Maverick. It had the typical sheet metal laid on the floor riveted on, riveted patches on the front wings, no rear wings below the bumper line, and rust between the roof and top windshield trim.

As for space utilisation, If I remember correctly, even on the 4 door, there was a 6″ bit of rubbermaid plastic trim on the sides of the seats because the wheelarch intruded too much, meaning that only two people could fit, and you sat at a canted angle with your butts touching over the differential and your legs out to the side. Plus you couldn’t see out of the windows, as they were only tiny slits, not unlike a new Dodge Avenger.

I also remember the stamped brocade pattern in the vinyl, the burns from which I think still remain on the back of my legs.

For all that, just as the Valiant was a better car than the Volare, I think it was a MUCH better car than the gilded turd of a Granada that replaced it.

True, that. Also a lot of cars of that era…the body had to be designed around the bumpers, or it didn’t look right. Cars like the Maverick fell into that gap, where the body was done before and it wasn’t due (or the manufacturer couldn’t afford) a new body for many years afterwards.

If I recall correctly, Ford actually lowered the rear ride-height of the Maverick to get the rear bumper to cover the area it was mandated to. Really ruined the appearance of a car…that offered only appearance.

A little trivia from Mexico, they sold the Maverick as the “Falcon Maverick”, in a move similar to how the Duster was sold as the “Valiant Duster” during its first year. I spotted a promotionnal picture athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/5337890163/

We could ponder if Ford had once planned to offer the Maverick as a Falcon variant in the US but changed their mind at the 11th hour?

Iacocca hated the Falcon. He hated McNamara, who ramrodded it through…who made it in his, McNamara’s image…spartan. Iacocca once referred to it as an “anticar” – it ignored all the values Lido looked for in marketing an automobile.

And Iacocca had bested Bunkie Knudsen in a battle for the presidency of Ford. The Maverick was Lido’s victory dance…remake McNamara’s old-lady-special into HIS kind of car. The platform remained the same – Lido always valued style over substance – but it was completely, impractically reskinned. And was renamed, and re-marketed.

It was in the same market slot – compact. Would it have kept the Falcon name? Probably not, since the Falcon moniker was associated with the spartan car which predated this one. A new name was a natural.

I don’t know if Iacocca hated McNamara…he just strongly disagreed with his philosophy regarding cars and what should be emphasized. From what I have read, Iacocca respected McNamara’s intelligence, but felt that he was far too “tone deaf” when it came to listening to customer and dealer concerns.

Iacocca gave people what they wanted; McNamara gave people what HE thought they should want.

The Mav’s original sin, I thought, was to look exactly like a big car, just from farther away. “Need a compact? Here, just put these LTD plans on the Xerox and set it for 80%. ” Problem was, people don’t get shorter when they buy a compact car. Folks need the same amount of headroom, regardless. That’s a fact that car designers hate to admit. A car must have “proportion,” they insist, regardless of human proportions.

I like the way you linked this with the present day. Just the other day, I was thinking how hard it is to find a real sedan anymore. Thanks to the wind tunnel, they’re all fastbacks now!

The Grabber is yet another car on my short must have list. By all rights the Maverick should have been used as the 71+ Mustang. The Mav just fit what Mustang was supposed to be from the get go. All the man from F.O.R.D. had to do was offer a V8 Grabber from the beginning, maybe power disks at least as an option and they would have been good to go. Considering the Pinto coming around the corner this really made more sense.
The idea that this was going to be a Beetle beater had to be born in a closed room full of pungent smoke. But I guess all US manufacturers were smoking the same stuff in the early 70s.

The Maverick is interesting not so much for what it offered, but for what it didn’t. While you could get some plenty hot engines in the Chevy Nova (one of the hottest sixties musclecars was the 327 Corvette-powered ’66-’67, while later versions went all the way up to the big-block 396), and the Duster 340 would become a latter-day legend in the Roadrunner mold. Even the AMC Hornet got a 360. The hottest engine the Maverick ever got was a lowly 302-2bbl.

In strictly marketing terms, it was probably a smart move, since there were certainly Camaro/Barracuda/Javelin sales that got cannibalized by their cheaper but just-as-fast, compact musclecar little brothers. This surely didn’t happen with the Maverick and Mustang.

But one can only wonder what might have been if Ford had decided to offer what was arguably one of their best V8 engines, the 351 Cleveland series, in a Maverick.

The thing is, if you get the bug, it’s not that hard to put a 351W in a Maverick. Although the smart move now would likely be a 5.0 pushrod motor. If the emissions laws are lax enough in your area you could even salvage one out of a wrecked Explorer.

I could be wrong, of course, but I think the Aussie Ford version of the Maverick would be the XB Falcon. The only difference would be that the Aussie built version came with different body styles a two door coupe, a four door sedan, a four door station wagon (something our Maverick was never offered with, unfortunately) a utility truck (ute) and panel van.

A ’70 Maverick was my first car. It was a hand-me-down in ’75 when Dad upgraded to a Granada. My suggestion at the time was to sell the Maverick and use the proceeds to buy (a) a ’65 Corvair convertible, (b) a ’68 Beetle, or (c) a ’66 Malibu convertible, all of which were available locally at the time for no more than a grand (the Malibu was a six). Three strikes, I was out, and I had a Maverick.

Mine had a wheezy 200 six and automatic. Despite all kinds of efforts the engine never idled smoothly; it would cough, stumble and stall. To avoid stalling, I would shift it into neutral at traffic lights and rev it a bit, then drop it into gear when the light changed. As you might expect, that eventually took its toll on the transmission.

Over the years, the styling of the coupe has grown on me. It’s too bad the stock mechanicals were so mediocre. Today though, the survivors seem to have developed a following as a “poor man’s Mustang,” as a whole lot of the parts used to restore and upgrade early Mustangs will bolt right in.

Ford sold Mavericks in Brazil for a couple years longer than they did in North America. The Brazilian cars could be ordered with four, six or eight cylinders. They never suffered the indignity of American crash bumpers. Nor did they ever have the silly under-dash shelf; the radio and glovebox were cut into the main part of the dash where they should have been all along. There was even a nice looking station wagon available in very small quantities; it was created by a coachbuilder under contract to a particular Brazilian dealer. Surviving wagons command hefty prices today.

My best friend’s family bought a brand-new Maverick in 1970. They traded in their mid-1960s VW Beetle, so there was one conquest sale from the foreign interloper. Their Maverick had full wheelcovers, a vinyl roof and an automatic transmission.

My grandmother later bought a used 1973 four-door sedan in 1977. It was baby blue with a dark blue interior.

These cars were reliable. I’m not remembering the larger Ford I-6s as being any worse than the GM or AMC sixes. In those days (early 1970s), even grade schoolers knew that the Mopar slant six was legendary for its reliability. The Maverick engines were certainly as tough as the GM and AMC engines, but I do remember that my grandmother’s 1973 model guzzled gas for a six. I always figured it was because of the emission controls for that year.

My parents had a 1973 AMC Gremlin with the 258 I-6, and it was easily the worst car they (or I, for that matter) have EVER owned. That engine was always causing trouble, and even the Chrysler Torqueflight automatic was giving up the ghost by 95,000 miles.

Where the Maverick excelled was in fit and finish and…the quality of the radio. The interiors seemed much nicer than a comparable GM, Chrysler of AMC compact (even if the Maverick didn’t have the LDO package). As for the plastic grommets around the interior door lock buttons – I’m remembering that the Chrysler and AMC compacts had these, too.

And Ford radios in the 1970s were simply head-and-shoulders above those in my parents’ Odsmobiles or various Darts owned by other relatives for reception and sound quality. This included the base AM radio. Meanwhile, even the tuner knob in my parents’ Gremlin started to slip…only the pushbuttons worked after about three years!

My parents bought a new 1971 Mercury Comet 4 dr with the 250. As I was just getting interested in cars, this was my introduction to badge engineering (“isn’t this a Maverick?”). A few years later when I started driving it was my hand-me-down car, and with a new set of Firestone 500 radials it was, from my limited 16 year old perspective, a reasonably fun car to fling around.
But I also had the occasion to drive a rented ’78 Maverick — just awful! I think it had the 200 and, of course, crappy tires.

My only memory of these cars were my oldest sister’s then good friend Katie who either had one or drove her parent’s Maverick, I think it may have been a 2 door, I don’t recall now as it was in 1974 I think.

Anyway, the car was gold with a tan vinyl interior if I remember right and I think a ’70 or so and what I remember was while the car looked great from the exterior, it was another cheap, bench seated economy car made by one of our finest.

I rode in the back once to go somewhere, I forget now where and I remember spotting where some little kid had taken a ball point pen to the back seat…

Otherwise, it was an OK car for the times.

Still liked the Grabber the best of the Mavericks for exterior trims and the wheels and it made the best looking Maverick of them all.

I loved the LDO Maverick/Comets, especially in sedan form. You could even get them with a floor-mounted shifter. And the bucket seats were absolutely gorgeous, although they only came in one color – tan.

Kinda always had soft spot for these AND Pintos. Never owned either though. Ford at one time had considered a two door sedan version with the exact same roofline used on the four door. I saw a picture of it in a magazine all those years ago. It was an attractive car.

My experience with Mavericks is mixed. My parents bought a brand-new 1973 in 1972. A four-door V8 with the Luxury Decor Group and every single option, identical to the gold one shown in the photo above. It was a great car and they owned it until 1976. Fast forward to 1981, and I got a base model 1974 as my high school car. Former Texaco company car, white with Mucinex mascot green vinyl interior. Gutless inline six, don’t know if it was the 200 or 250. HATED that car, it was so bad that the 1979 Chevette that replaced it after the engine seized in 1982, seemed like a revelation.

A 71 2dr Maverick was my first car (bought 11/21/83 for $625!). Still have it. As well as seven more! At one time I owned 15! Yup, 15. Right now I’m preparing my 71 Grabber Blue/White Tu-Tone 4dr for road duty. I’ve owned that one since June ’88. It’ll replace my 76 Stallion I’ve been driving for the last few years while it undergoes an engine overhaul.

Even if Detroit could build small cars to compete against Toyota, Datsun, Volkswagen, not everyone wants a small car. Sometimes the smallest cars Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge and Plymouth are what American car buyers want or need.

I’m not a huge fan of American Ford cars. I prefer the F250 and F350 trucks. But that being said, I’ve developed an interest in the Maverick. I had a neighbour who had a 2 door Maverick when I was a boy.

one thing what surprised me is when the Ford Maverick first came out the majority of these were the 2 door models and the 4 door models didn’t really start taking off until the 1973-74 oil crisis and started outselling the 2 door’s.

My first car was a used
1970 2 door mav. I have read all the neg comments which I have no argument, though for a young dudes first car I cant complain. VERY reliable, decent fuel economy, kick ass heater, non floating gas needle and great in the snow. What more could a 16yr old ask for? It was a dented up mess with a shot front end and bald front tires a year later but I learn to drive well in it and always look back fondly when I remember driving for that year of 1982.

Like anyone who drives a car, reliability is, or at least should be one of the most important things a driver should look for. While we all want something that’s exciting and stylish, but what good is panache if it breaks down frequently. I’ve read alot of the negative comments aimed at the Maverick and the Comet, and since I’ve never owned or driven either car, I wouldn’t know what either are like. But I’m not going to say negative things about a car I’ve never owned or driven. Nor am I going to let other people influence my opinions about a car.

Regardless of the scorn and derision heaped upon the Maverick, it is one of the most reliable cars I have ever driven. The one pictured here (a 1972 plain-jane inline six) was purchased used in 1977 (my mom picked it out) and lasted as a daily driver until 1993. Since it had so many memories attached to it, I treated it to a full, frame-up restoration, and here is a picture of it as it appears today.

Nice looking car. Do you have any more photos of the car? It’s an unforgivable shame that the Maverick was scorned and derided like it is. If I wanted to buy a vintage Ford from the 70s, I’d buy a 1976 Maverick, plain jane six cylinder engine.

My Dad bought a new 74 Mercury Comet 4door (kid brother to the Maverick). This was the worse car he ever owned. The interlock would get out of sync locking out the starter. My job was to pop the hood and press the reset button. I got good at this after awhile. Once I declared my intention to go out of town for college, my dad immediately traded it in for a Toyota Corolla.

About 12 years later, I came across it in a grocery store parking lot. The new owner was under the hood looking for the reset button!!!

My older sister was given a hand-me-down 1975 Maverick 4 door sedan, in drab brown inside and out. All it had was an automatic for options. Grandpa didn’t even splurge for a radio; it had a filler-panel in the dash where it would go! But it DID have “automatic door unlocking”; Grandpa took an old hockey stick, cut it short, and carved a round 1/2- hole at one end, so Grandma could use it to unlock the far front passenger door knob!

A neighbour had one of these – a 1970 stripper version – not even a glove box, just a shelf as I recall he showed me one day. It had a three on the tree shifter, and it got him from point A to point B – I think he only bought it because he worked at the Oakville assembly plant and he wanted to get into the ‘right’ parking lot every day. He told me he was truly a VW man, and I believed him even less when he bought a Lada in 1979 to replace the Ford Granada he bought to replace the Maverick.

ahh-the “Tijuana Taxi”! built to get around the drag racing associations rules designed to eliminate the 351 Cleveland Pintos and Mustang II’s that were beating up on the Chevys and Mopars in pro-stock at the time! rules required any vehicle with a wheelbase less than 105″ to run more weight per cubic inch(I believe it was 7 pounds per cubic inch where the longer w.b. cars were at 6.5 pounds per cubic inch). yes,it did make quite a difference! one unintended side effect was that it also eliminated the Vega-poor Bill Jenkins!
the rule kept the 2 door Maverick out too as it had a 103″wheelbase compared to the 4 doors 108″ wheelbase-thus the Gapp&Roush 4-door Maverick Pro-Stocker was created! weird lookin but cool and as fast as the Pintos,it turns out! it’s called ingenuity,and drag racers are full of that! other Ford racers were using ’70 Mustangs but another rule said that the car could not be more than 5 years old so that only lasted a year or so. I guess not too many guys wanted to try to make the larger,longer ’71 to ’73 Mustangs go fast in Pro Stock even though they looked to be sleeker and more aerodynamic than the other Fords being used!

Talk about recycling???? This post, from what I remember, is a Recyled Post. Can’t you do anything better than rewrite a two-year-old post that says the same thing in a different way. Cmon … Let’s get groovin’ here on something important for a change.

A friend of mine bought a Grabber new when they first came out. I6, auto & PS it was a slug. It wasn’t very comfortable and was noisy. I hated riding in it. The car he had before a ’63 Plymouth Fury Convertible wide block 318, pushbutton auto & PS. It was still in good shape and I still kick myself for not buying it from him. It was 3 times the car the Maverick was.

In 1987, a year after my arrival in the US of A a German student came to our university. I helped him select a car. At one dealership we drove a Citation and a Maverick, at another we drove a Beetle and a Maverick. Guess what he chose. He chose the second Maverick green on green. The first one made too many suspension noises. He declined the Beetle because he wanted to experience an American car. He knew Beetles all to well. There you have it: a Maverick won a sale over a beetle, albeit a few years too late.
I liked the Maverick too for what it is. A simple machine that is not a Beetle.

Oh, those Germans and their curiosity. In the ’90’s I worked for a large international insurance brokerage that handled some accounts for BMW, which has its North American headquarters in Northern NJ. They had an internship program of sorts whereby they’d “import” a slew of young folks from overseas to fill positions at their headquarters here in the states. Part of my job was to help these guys get set up with insurance products for their cars, apartments, etc while they were here on their assignments. Each and every one of those folks landed here and within thirty days was proudly piloting a big late ’70’s or early ’80’s American land yacht. Olds Delta 88’s were particularly popular. Keeping in mind that BMW was near the top of its game during those years, we had a lot of laughs in the office over the choices these guys made, especially in light of their employer and their credentials.

A ’72 Ford Maverick 4-dr. (puke green) was my FIRST CAR @ 16y/o! That was in 1978. I bought it for $200. It was a little old lady’s Sunday go to Church meeting car.
I- 6 cyl. 200, auto. I put wide mags on the back…. blew the motor, then tried to shoe horn a Mercury Comet (sister ship) 250 I-6 motor in. It did not fit. I went back to the Junk yard & swapped the 250 for another rusty old 200 I-6.
I removed the bench seat and installed some bucket seats on 2X4 blocks.
A rear door was slightly pushed in & was difficult to open, so I put a barn door type padlock clasp & padlock on the OUTSIDE of the door. Then, I put a piece of wood across the rear door armrest/handles to hold 2 large Advent house speakers. I strapped them in place with the seat belts.
With drum brakes all around, it had a hard time stopping. It had an even harder time getting up to any respectable speed.
I drove that car for the last 2 years of high school & the 1st 2 years of college.
On one trip to college, I drove down the interstate at about 70 mph. & opened the driver’s door & held my knee against it. I wiped out 1 mile of orange cones with the driver’s door. I looked in my rear view mirror, and saw orange cone’s summer-salting all over the highway!
When I retired the car for my first ’74 Opel Ascona (1900), I ran it in the woods & drove off a 12 foot vertical cliff in a gravel pit. I stuffed the nose (& radiator) hard into the ground at the bottom & SPIT the battery out! (we wore full face helmets off course). That was the end of it! I never looked back. I moved on to German cars from there on out.
Funny, the stupid things we/I did when we (I) were young! We were invincible! But we laughed a lot. 😎

I’ve driven several Mavericks and they never stopped reminding me that they were cars built down to a penny-pinching price. Sure they were simple and rugged, but that does not excuse them for their ever-present crudeness and cheapness. Back in the early 1970s a little more money would get you into a Plymouth Duster – a bigger, roomier, and better handling car even in base form. Plus the Duster gave you a glove box, temp and amp gauges, optional discs, torsion bar front suspension, and a huge trunk.

These cars were no better nor any worse than stripper Hornets, Darts or Novas of the same time. Millions of Americans (and tens of thousands of Canadians) were happy to buy and drive these things and asked for little else. That really says more about the low-brow North American tastes than anything else.

I worked with a tough punk chick back in the ’80s. I was the clean cut preppy kid. She used to regale me with stories of what she called “Maverick Hunting” it was her and her boyfriend going out after dark, finding a Maverick and bashing its windows. Nothing to brag about but apropos to this story.

CC effect: I was recently in some touristy gift shop where there was the usual plethora of metal, model cars. However, the only one in 1/18 scale was a 1974 Maverick. Who the hell makes a 1/18 scale ‘collectable’ of a plain-Jane (complete with whitewalls and wheel covers) 1974 Maverick? It wasn’t even the Grabber version. As you might surmise, I suspect it had been sitting there for quite some time.

I’ve always liked the 2 door Maverick, just like the 2 door Comets of that era. There’s some definite Mustang touches to it….the grille, and the fastback roof in particular. It’s hard to say why, exactly, almost all of the cars have disappeared from the roads (even on classic car nights), but I’m guessing that so-so build quality and lack of resale value (even when hotrodded) are big factors. I’ve always thought that the 2 doors being pretty lightweight cars would have been more popular with drag racing and performance guys, but it’s possible that the “granny daily driver” image was too permanently ensconced in people’s minds for the Maverick to be taken very seriously. The Nova SS made the Nova be perceived as much more than just a daily driver.

Perhaps if it was offered with a 302 right from the start, and/ or a much bigger engine option, the car would be known as more than just basic transportation?

Ford was much more careful than Chrysler on making the Maverick a compact musclecar for fear of encroaching on higher-profit Mustang sales. That really explains why the Maverick never got anything bigger than the low-power, 2-bbl, single exhaust version of the 302.

Yeah, they might have sold more Mavericks with a hotter V8 (or two), but the profit margin was lower and they would have made less money than the Mustang. The Duster, although it was a sales hit, was not really liked all that much within the Chrysler executive ranks for just that reason. It went a long way to killing off the rather expensive to develop E-body Barracuda and Challenger.

Had a neighbor who had a 1972 or 73 “sporty” Grabber in orange with the black stripes and fake hood scoops on the hood. His wife didn’t care for the car, preferring the more elegent Ford Galaxy.

My mother’s first car was dark blue 1974 Maverick 2-door with the Luxury Décor option, fancy wheelcovers, side moldings, 302 V-8, automatic transmission, power brakes, power steering, air conditioner, AM radio. It wasn’t a bad looking car at the time.

She looked at the Chevy Nova but noticed the Maverick had all the headlight, windshield wiper, heater, airconditioning controls clustered together on the left side of the steering wheel, which was convenient for her as she could only use her left arm and hand. That was the major reason she bought it.

The 1974 model year, as I recall was the last year before catalytic converter and using leaded gas, which was cheaper than unleaded gas. Then there was the sturdy 5mph front & rear bumper and the annoying ignition-seatbelt interlock which forced you to buckle up before starting the engine.

The car, with the 302 V-8 had quick acceleration at the expensive of economy. Rearview visibility was poor because of the fastback style rear window. Otherwise the car had a sporty look.

Had the car for 13 years and it had its share of mechanical and body hardware problems. For a car that was advertised as “simple”, do-it-yourself maintenance work wasn’t easy; the V-8 was a tight fit and engine compartment was crowded as I recall. Finally got rid of it when the transmission started showing problems It served us well during those years.

Granny’s yellow 70 Grabber was the first one sold in the Chambersburg PA area. Turned heads in front of a line in front of the movie theater we passed bringing it home.

200″ six, auto, white walls and no power steering or brakes. She drove it for many years and it caused no problems for her.

The package shelf was less a “cheap out” than it was mimicking Euro small cars which had package shelves under the dash. Even the Gremlin and Hornet had them, though they also came with a glove box. IIRC the base two passenger Gremlin had no glove box door, but I could be mistaken.

The Simple Machine: honest, inexpensive, easy to repair. Ford going back to it’s roots. Very appealing to me. And to many others when it came out.

The base Gremlin not only lacked a glove box door, it also didn’t have a rear seat or an opening rear hatch!

No doubt your grandmother bought her Maverick from Hal Lowry Ford, which is now gone, replaced by a Ryan’s Cafeteria along Lincoln Way East. The new Ford dealer is Keystone Ford, and is visible from I-81 near the Lincoln Way exit.

McKnight Motors, the old AMC-Jeep dealer, is long gone, too. It’s now an auto parts store. My grandmother’s gentleman friend lived one block away from the dealership, and when we went to his house for Sunday dinner, I’d walk down to McKnight Motors and look at the new AMCs and Jeeps.

Like with SO MANY American cars of the 1970’s, one had to “work the options list” to get a decent car.

The later 4 door Mavericks, optioned with the 302 V8 engine, 3 speed automatic transmission, power steering, Factory Air Conditioning and the LDO (Luxury Decor Option) gave you a peppy, almost-upscale small car. (Well, “small” for the American market time period.)

A high school friend’s Father bought an early Maverick for the family’s second car/back up car. The small six engine, 3 speed on the column, manual steering, bright plaid patterned bench seat that was as uncomfortable as it was colorful. The only option the car had was an excellent, in dash Factory Air Conditioning system (a nod to the perpetually Hot & Humid New Orleans climate).

Over the course of the 10 years of ownership it became a low mileage penalty box pig. Looked good, as it was always under the carport attached to the house, because NOBODY wanted to drive it; even my 17 year old best friend at the time (the owner’s son.)

My grandfather bought a Maverick in 1971 as the family needed a second car to complement the ’68 Impala Custom Coupe. Mom remembers that he *hated* that car and that it had all manner of problems. In fact, it was his last Ford vehicle after having good experiences with two previous ones. They kept it until sometime around ’75 when it was traded on a Dodge Coronet, but it was not remembered fondly in the family.

The coupes do have an undeniable style, though, that belies the pedestrian underpinnings. That red one in the lead photo shows off the lines nicely, handicapped as they are by the 5 MPH bumpers. Very attractive house behind it too!

Agree with you that the coupes do have an undeniable style due to the fastback and yes the 5 mph did ruin the flowing lines, but they were sturdy.

I liked those heavy 5 mph bumpers. I remembered back in the 1980s when my mother’s car was rear ended by a fairly late-model mid-size sedan. Her rear bumper and body was undamaged, except for a minor tweak to the bumper guards. But the other car’s front end, which didn’t have the 5mph bumper, was heavily damaged.

Speaking of bumpers: I remember in the early 70s Reader’s Digest magazine ran advertisements about the need for stronger bumpers due to expensive body repairs and rising insurance costs. The result was federal mandate of bumpers withstanding 2-1/2 mph collisions, later raised to 5mph.

On cars nowadays a 5 mph “tap” will cost thousands of dollars to repair. Funny nobody nowadays protest the high repair rates of collisions.

Mr. Niedermeyer, how about an article on the evolution of bumpers, I.e., when first added to cars (which resembled leaf springs) during the 1920s to “stylistic” body attachments during the 1950s and 1960s, to where we are now with the energy-absorbing type bumpers integrated into the car bodies?

I do not agree with the criticisms of the Maverick here at all. It is not a bad looking car at all. I would say the rear overhang is a little bit too long and the front needs to be stretched out a little but that is true of almost every American car of that era.

I modified the pic at the top of this article to be what I think it shouldve been.

sorry John! I’m glad that your idea never made it to metal! my ’74 is my idea of how a Maverick should look-with a well built 302 4-barrel,C-4 automatic,9″ Ford rearend with 4.11 gears and a Trac-Lock. bumpers were cut down to a more reasonable size and lightened,though they would not deal well with a 5 mph impact anymore-I just try to avoid that scenario! taillights from a ’64 T’Bird were fitted to the rear panel with a sequential unit mounted in the trunk. makes the car unique among Mavericks-one guy thought it was a Shelby Mustang!
I have had this car since 1992 and I’ve always thought the styling just begged for hot-rodding! took me all these years to finally realize a dream I’ve had since I first saw the Maverick back in late ’69-it was meant to be a performance car!
I never heard rumors about a 351 Cleveland being planned for the car but I do know it would have been easier than the Boss 429 Mustangs were and probably a lot quicker! definitely would have needed some pretty crazy looking headers! and changing plugs would be a nightmare-my 302 is not the easiest plug change I’ve ever done! I have heard of a car in my area that has a Cleveland in it-my son knows the guy and I’m trying to get him to arrange a meeting with the guy to see the car. he says the spring towers are uncut to which I said”does he hafta pull the engine to change the plugs?”
anyway,I’m attaching a pic of my car-I think it came out beautiful! looks kinda like Barkos post but a little more “pumped”! it never ran on the street under it’s own power(the original 250 cube I-6 was just resting on the crossmember when I got the car) until 2014,but when it did it was SHOCKING!

Agreed. It’d be fantastic to find one of those bare-bones, $1995 strippo specials in ‘survivor’ condition. Apparently, much like the original Mustang, there are a couple of ways to differentiate an early 1970 Maverick from a later one. The early ones have a horn ring and a dash-mounted ignition switch. Thanks to safety regulations, later 1970 Mavericks omitted the horn ring and the ignition switch went to the column.

Further, did Ford really have three completely different entry-level cars in 1970? There was the original Falcon, then the Torino-based Falcon, and finally the Maverick.

Boy, once Lido had a platform he liked he certainly got a lot of mileage out of them. Falcon-Mustang-Maverick-Granada, then all the K car permutations over at Chrysler. He figured that most buyers cared little of the underpinnings and bought cars on style, and was basically right. Just drop on a new body, advertise the hell out of it and rake in the profits. For all his faults, the man was a marketing genius.

The Maverick was a huge hit when introduced. Even though the Beetle was at its sales peak around this time, I knew a few people (mostly girls) who cross-shopped both and bought the Maverick. It looked sporty for the time and was priced right. It was available with a reliable automatic (as opposed to VW’s awful Automatic Stickshift) and you could get factory A/C, which by 1970 was becoming a must have option for many.

Am I the only one who likes the 4-door Maverick? I like the proportions and the flowing, curvy lines. Maybe I’m just fond of it because it takes me back to my childhood. My grandma drove a 1976 ivory 4-door Maverick, with the big bumpers (plain, no bumper trim) that was absolutely basic, except for air conditioning. It had dog-dish hubcaps, tan vinyl seats, bench in the front, basic AM radio, non-power brakes, and 250 CID straight six with auto transmission. Surprisingly, it also had manual steering, which I remember everyone in the family wondering why grandma chose a car with such heavy steering. In the mid eighties my uncle fitted a power steering conversión which helped. By the time I was old enough to drive it, I was surprised by the enormous on-center slack, and of course, its total lack of road-feel. I also remember it being very sluggish off the line, but apart from all that, it was a pretty tight feeling car. The doors slammed shut with a nice, solid sound, and the interior trim felt firm and didn’t rattle too much, or fall off. I liked that car, but was always a bit embarrased to admit it 🙂

Outstanding!
Same color & same wheel covers as my ’72 4-dr (200CID Auto) , I had when I was 17 y/o back in 1979 .
Paid $200 for it.
I don’t recall that gas filler cap in the center of the tail panel though?
And no glove box IIRC… just a shelf beneath the dash?
Careful… drum brakes all around! They will fade if you push the envelope!
Thanks for the memory!

My father bought new three speed Mavericks in 1969.5 and 1973. I learned to drive on the ’73. Driving this one will bring back memories. Not sure how “fun” it’ll be, but it’s been many years since driving a manual column shift. As for the gas fill, they were all this way. And no glovebox until 1973.

I find it interesting that the 1960 Falcon’s base price was $1912 for a bottom feeder 2 door sedan while the 1970 Maverick’s base price was $1995 for the 2 door fastback coupe. 10 years, same platform, bigger engines (using the same basic design) and all the new technology that had come along in 10 years. According to the information I found, the curb weight of a basic 1960 Falcon 2 door was about 2400 pounds while the Maverick’s curb weight was around 2500 lbs. The wheelbase of the Falcon was 109.5 inches while the wheelbase of the Maverick was 103 inches. Overall length of the Falcon was 191.2 inches while the length of the Maverick was 179.4 inches. So basically after a decade, Ford’s compact shrunk by a foot and gained 100 pounds and cost $83 less. Both were primitive, spartan, crude and underpowered. The 3 speed manual helped a lot with acceleration. It’s amazing that Ford could build a similar (but smaller) car 10 years later that was less than $100 more. I wonder how they did it.

Incidentally, the 1971 Pinto’s base price was $1919, the curb weight was 2015 pounds, the wheelbase was 94 inches and the length was 163 inches. The Maverick’s base price in 1971 went up to $2175. For only about $250 more, you got a lot more car. The Maverick was bigger, more powerful, better looking (in my opinion), and more substantial. You got 2 more cylinders but 1 fewer gear.

An interesting comparison.

*The source for data is automobile-catalog.com. If I have any data wrong, please feel free to correct me.

I have often pondered the fact that the early Maverick was a sporty looking car with modern, contemporary looks and a rakish roofline but it didn’t have a performance option. Nova had the SS 396 which could be ordered with a brutal 402 cubic inch 375 HP big block V8, Duster had a performance package complete with a lively 275 horsepower 340, but Maverick only had a lowly 2bbl lopo 302 that could muster only 210 horses, and it wasn’t even offered until the 1971 model year. Plymouth and Chevrolet offered 4 speed manuals in their V8 compacts, but Ford only offered a 3 speed on the column, The 302 wasn’t slow (0-60 in 8.4 seconds isn’t bad) but compared to the Nova and Duster, it was rather pedestrian. Sure, Maverick had the sporty Grabber package, but it was mostly for show. I always wondered why Ford didn’t drop a 351 Windsor 4bbl and a 4 speed into the Maverick Grabber. The 351W wasn’t much wider than the 302 and it would have likely have fit with little to no modification. A 351W will barely, and I mean BARELY fit in a ’65-66 Mustang, so it would have probably fit in the Maverick with little modification. It would have been a contender and a worthwhile competitor to the Duster and the Nova and quite possibly a world beater. I had never heard the story about the Maverick being originally designed around the 351 Cleveland, but it doesn’t surprise me. That would have been a little rocket. The Maverick coupe doesn’t look like an economy car, it looks like a sporty performance car. There was no doubt that the 1960 Falcon was an economy car but the Maverick was much more muscular looking. My source says that the 351C was about 40 pounds heavier than the 351W, which would have affected handling negatively. The Maverick is a good example of could-have-been-should-have-been. A 351 Maverick, C or W, would have transformed the Maverick into a bottom feeder car to a full blown supercar. As far as taking sales away from the Mustang, the Mustang had a 109″ wheelbase and was 189.5″ long and weighed over 3100 lbs with the 302, which put them in different classes and they were not direct competitors with each other. They would have complemented each other quite nicely. Such wasted potential.